The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Since the 20th century, sports has been at the forefront of every civil rights movement. From Jackie Robinson breaking MLB's color barrier in 1947 to Nelson Mandela stating in reference to South Africa's apartheid movement that, "Sport has the power to change the world," sports has continuously fostered social change. The gay-rights movement has been said to be the civil rights movement of the 21st century. The question thus becomes, what role will sports play in shaping the outcome of this movement and how might influential leagues wield their power to shape its course?

In recent weeks, the intersection of sports and the gay-rights movement has wound down a number of avenues. First, ahead of the NFL Combine, former University of Missouri football player, Michael Sam, came out as being gay. His announcement was largely lauded by the general public and media alike, and NFL owners largely voiced support for the young player. Mere days later, though, came the release of the Wells Report. That report highlighted the widespread use of homophobic comments and anti-gay slurs made by a handful Miami Dolphins players against fellow players and staff members. Earlier this week, the movement experienced a more positive highlight, when Jason Collins signed a ten-day contract with the Brooklyn Nets, making him the first openly gay player to play in an NBA game.

In the wake of each of these events, the question becomes, which league has the best platform to advocate for gay-rights? From a viewership and fan base perspective, that question is easily answered: The NFL. 2013 saw a record-setting television viewership year for the NFL. Throughout the season, NFL games ranked as 34 out of 35 of the most-watched shows on television. Overall, 205 million unique viewers tuned into games during the NFL regular season, representing 81-percent of all television homes in the United States, per Nielsen.

Given the platform that the NFL has, one has to ask, how is it using that platform with respect to the gay-rights movement? With stories like the Dolphins' locker room problems at the forefront of the media's attention, the NFL arguably needs to change the public's sentiment of how the league and its teams address the issue. However, a reported decision that the league may soon make is unlikely to drive any gay-rights supporters to favor the NFL's approach on the issue.

The decision being considered by the NFL is the possibility of relocating the Pro Bowl to Arizona in 2015. While this move would fall in line with the NFL's recent steps to bring changes to the set-up of the game to bring new energy to it, doing so would arguably stand in stark contrast to the gay-rights movement. That is because Arizona's legislature recently passed SB 1062. While bill makers argue that the purpose of the law was to recognize the religious freedoms of business owners by allowing them to do such things as refuse to host same-sex marriages and receptions, gay-rights supporters believe that the law legalizes discrimination against the LGBT community. As Arizona's governor, Jan Brewer, has until Saturday to veto the bill or allow it to move into law, the NFL's announcement of possibly rewarding Arizona with another one of its prized commodities could not come at a more interesting time.

In determining whether to allow Arizona to host the Pro Bowl, the NFL should turn to its past history and see how it responded under similar circumstances. Unfortunately for Arizona, that history is one in which the NFL took its product outside of the state in order to send a message to Arizona that its civil rights practices were outdated. The 1993 Super Bowl was slated to be held in Arizona. However, when the state's voters did not vote to make Martin Luther King Day a paid holiday in 1990, the NFL exercised its muscle and sent a message that the voters' decision was unacceptable by moving the Super Bowl west to Pasadena's Rose Bowl.

In the wake of losing millions of dollars in revenue that the state and its businesses would receive in hosting the Super Bowl, Arizona voters eventually recognized Martin Luther King Day as an official state holiday. Today, the value of hosting a Super Bowl has expanded well beyond the provisions earned two decades ago. Thus, one has to wonder what power the NFL might have in urging Arizona's law makers to re-consider and scrap SB 1062? Would the threat of losing out on a sporting event that could bring hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue to one of the states hardest hit by 2008's economic recession be enough to push Arizona's legislators to reconsider their stance on gay-rights? If the thought of losing out on hosting the Pro Bowl isn't enough to motivate Arizona's legislators to reconsider their position, should the NFL also pull the plug on Arizona hosting the Super Bowl in 2015?

For gay-rights advocates, there are stark differences between the the NFL's decision regarding the 1993 Super Bowl and the issues surrounding Arizona hosting the 2015 Pro Bowl and Super Bowl. Namely, the difference is that the NFL's decision regarding the 1993 Super Bowl largely centered around the fact that a large majority of the league's players are African-American. Thus, the league was concerned over how a large majority of its players may react to playing the league's most important game in a state that did not recognize Martin Luther King Day. With respect to gay-rights, NFL rosters are not composed of large numbers of individuals who are directly impacted by the issue. Yet, with Sam's announcement earlier this month and barring some unlikely event, his subsequent place on an NFL roster for the 2014-15 season, the NFL must make a decision of whether it will stand up for at least one of its members.